Telangana High Court
WP/13219/2002 of The Depot Manager Vs Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.13219 OF 2002 ORDER: Heard, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 2. At the relevant time, the 2nd respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-depot. A disciplinary
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No.13219 OF 2002
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned Counsel for the second respondent.
2. At the relevant time, the 2[nd] respondent was working as aConductor in the petitioner-depot. A disciplinary enquiry wascommenced against him on the following charges :
i) For having failed to issue tickets to 12 individual passengersfound alighting without tickets of Beechpalli stage No:27, havingboarded the bus at Rangapur Stage No:28 inspite of collecting therequisite fare from them at the boarding point itself whichconstitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTCEmployees (conduct) Regulations 1963.
ii) For having failed to observe the rule Issue & Start whichconstitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTCEmployees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
iii) For having failed to close the ticket Tray Nos. of all dens. in theSR against Stage No.27 though the stage No:27 has alreadyarrived which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) ofAPSRTC Emoloyees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
3. It may be noted that though the above charges pertain to theticketing irregularities, Charge No.1 is a serious one and if it is proved,it amounts to a clear cut mis-appropriation of RTC money. ChargeNos.2 and 3 relate to violation of rule of issue and start and failure toclose the ticket tray at the appropriate stages.
4. The Manager of the petitioner-depot, after a domestic enquiryand calling for the explanation of the 2[nd] respondent, concluded thatthe charges were proved and accordingly he passed order dated17.11.1997 removing the 2[nd] respondent from service.
5. The 2[nd] respondent has failed in the departmental remediesalso. Subsequently, he moved the present dispute i.e., I.D.No.162 of1998 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur,challenging his removal.
6. The Labour Court in its award dated 25-01-2001 observed thateven if the charges are held proved, the punishment of removal fromservice is highly disproportionate and in that view of the matter itdirected reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages. It is this award which is challenged by the APSRTC in this writpetition.
7. A perusal of the award shows that the Labour Court has madeseveral observations regarding certain violations relating to theprocedure, but did not discuss their effect such as, whether theycaused any prejudice to the 2[nd] respondent. There is no discussionalso as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain thecharges brought against the 2[nd] respondent and did not say whetherfindings of disciplinary authority and appellate authority are correct. The Labour Court ultimately held that even if charges are proved stillthe punishment of removal is highly disproportionate and in that viewof the matter it directed reinstatement of the 2[nd] respondent withcontinuity of service, but without back wages.
8. It may be noted that Charge No.1 relates to mis-appropriation and if it is held proved, the punishment of removalcan be said to be an adequate punishment also. However, I do notwish to go into the merits relating to proof or otherwise of the charges. The Labour Court should have considered the evidence recorded inthe domestic enquiry and expressed its opinion on merits relating toproof or otherwise of the three charges framed against the 2[nd]respondent. The Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction on theabove aspects. This Court now on Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia cannot appreciate the evidence, as this job should be done bythe Labour Court, and it cannot also go into the adequacy andinadequacy of punishment basing upon the finding relating to merits as that exercise has also to be done by the Labour Court.
9. In the above circumstances, and for the aforesaid reason,
I am of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the award has to be setaside and the matter has to be remanded back to the Labour Court forfresh disposal in accordance with law. As the matter is an old one, theLabour Court shall dispose it of, as expeditiously as possible, within aperiod of three months, positively from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. The Labour Court shall dispose of the matter without beinginfluenced in any manner by any of the observations made in thisorder. No costs.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and remanded back tothe Labour Court.
_____________________
N.RAVI SHANKAR, J
28[th] December 2012Rds
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
Rds
WRIT PETITION NO.13219 OF 2002
Date:28.12.2012